 |
|
| Home | Yearly News Archive | Advertisers | Blog | Contact Us |
|
 |
Friday, May 17, 2024 |
|
Historic code 1210 |
Post Reply 
|
Page 12> |
| Author | ||
Storm Ahead 
MUSA Immigrant 
Joined: Aug 04 2010 Status: Offline Points: 18 |
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote Reply
 Topic: Historic code 1210Posted: Nov 12 2010 at 9:34am |
|
|
1210.03(e)(1) e) General Powers and Duties. The Historic Commission shall have the following powers and duties, in addition to those otherwise specified: (1) The Historic Commission shall conduct a continuous survey of all areas, places, structures, works of art, or similar objects in the City which the Commission has reason to believe are or will be eligible for designation as historic sites, landmarks or districts. ???????? I think their observation glasses got fogged up. There is a mighty fine school building being torn down as I type this! |
||
|
Stormy
|
||
 |
||
|
Mike_Presta
MUSA Council 
Joined: Apr 20 2008 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 3483 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Nov 10 2010 at 4:26pm |
|
|
Mr. Picard:
I hate to say "I tild you so", but I told you so!!!
Or will we??? We had TWO attorneys vote in favor of this MIS-GUIDED ordinance, which was reviewed and approved by our City Law Director!!! Make sure that this "gang" follows the letter of the law!!!
I hope that the intelligent council members watch this closely!!!
|
||
|
“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012
|
||
|
||
|
angelababy
MUSA Resident 
Joined: Aug 04 2010 Status: Offline Points: 103 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Nov 01 2010 at 11:35pm |
|
|
Thanks so much for the wonderful information you provided us |
||
|
||
|
spiderjohn
Prominent MUSA Citizen 
Joined: Jul 01 2007 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 2749 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Sep 12 2010 at 9:39am |
|
|
Hey--finally a crazy person at the podium that has not been associated with MUSA.
That was pretty amazing entertainment--might make a good Councilmember!
Or a plum spot on the Historic Property Repressive Committee.
|
||
|
||
|
Mike_Presta
MUSA Council
Joined: Apr 20 2008 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 3483 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Sep 12 2010 at 6:16am |
|
|
Of course many people saw him.
I am unsure of the point he was trying to make. He seemed to be equating opposition to Ordinace 1210 to mayhem in the streets and hog-raising in the city and advocacy of abandonment of speed limits.
I suppose if he did not read the ordinance any more carefully than some of the attorneys that hang around city hall did, that would be an easy mistake to make. After all, many who do not know me at all accuse me of being an art-hater and anti-history zealot.
Oh well, ignorance is bliss.
I may not agree with what he had to say, but I certainly defend his right to say it. I actually hope that he speaks more often during Citizens' Comments. Perhaps next time he will defend some of our city officials specifically and by name!!!
|
||
|
“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012
|
||
|
||
|
Rhodes
MUSA Resident
Joined: Jun 18 2010 Status: Offline Points: 209 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Sep 12 2010 at 2:54am |
|
|
I finally had the chance to watch some of last Tuesday's city meeting. I guess it's ok to call someone out in the video since they spoke at a public meeting.
There was a man that spoke as a resident of South Main, he said his is Dan Gawron. Did anyone else see this? Aside from the fact that he came off a little psychotic, did he actually think he was being persuasive? Somebody told me this guy had an old dying tree in his front yard several years ago. There was a large hole in the bottom of it where it was rotting. Instead of doing the proper safe thing and removing the tree, he actually took brick and mortar and filled in the large hole. Surprise, surprise, the tree still died and had to come down. I guess curbside trees are historic too. These are the people that make fun of us posters on MUSA? |
||
|
||
|
spiderjohn
Prominent MUSA Citizen
Joined: Jul 01 2007 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 2749 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Sep 10 2010 at 12:20pm |
|
|
Mr.Picard
Thank you for your prompt and courteous reply. I hope you stick around to participate in constructive discussion on this site. Maybe you could explain your reasoning for supporting this ordinance and the need to bring the vote immediately last Tuesday.
Also--your thoughts on the Pendleton arrangement and the Main St.Project.
The Main St.Project was approved Tuesday, however I have never really understood what was approved, or what this project is actually going to accomplish.
It is a HUGE step for you to come here.
Few do so for long.
I hope that you will be treated with proper respect, and recognized for your willingness to serve.
|
||
|
||
|
Vivian Moon
MUSA Council
Joined: May 16 2008 Location: Middletown, Ohi Status: Offline Points: 4187 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Sep 10 2010 at 10:01am |
|
|
Mike Isn't this the same argument of law that we made for the large number of newer homes (infill properties) that were going to be included in the Highlands Historic District?
Didn't Marty assured them that it would NOT have any effect on their property?....hmmmmmm
|
||
|
||
|
Vivian Moon
MUSA Council
Joined: May 16 2008 Location: Middletown, Ohi Status: Offline Points: 4187 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Sep 10 2010 at 9:43am |
|
|
Mike
You are correct. The Middletown Cemetery was declared historic in February 2006
Historic cemetery law covers these items; buildings, vaults, sculpture, tombstones, fences, water features, trees, plants, and even ground cover. |
||
|
||
|
Mike_Presta
MUSA Council
Joined: Apr 20 2008 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 3483 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Sep 10 2010 at 9:38am |
|
|
I won't wait on your reply, because I doubt that you will have one!!
|
||
|
“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012
|
||
|
||
|
Mike_Presta
MUSA Council
Joined: Apr 20 2008 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 3483 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Sep 10 2010 at 9:37am |
|
|
Oh, and Mr. Picard, just in case you didn't see it. Do you recall Kohler standing up there with a straight face on August 17, saying that there was NOTHING in this ordinance about picking colors???
Well, I direct your attention to section 1210.10(a), which states, in part:
I guess you didn't read that part, either!!!
If these posts sound like I'm angry, it's because I'm angry!
YOU let the PEOPLE down!!!
|
||
|
“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012
|
||
|
||
|
Mike_Presta
MUSA Council
Joined: Apr 20 2008 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 3483 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Sep 10 2010 at 9:23am |
|
|
Mr Picard: Do you know what the “Historic Preservation Plan” and the “adopted design guidelines” are??? No?? Well, YOU just made the entire city subject to these things, at the whim of this History Czar, and the "Historic Preservation Administrator"!! Oh, Ya didn't know we had a "Historic Preservation Administrator"??? YOU just created one with this ordinance!!! Where will we get the money to pay this guy, (and guess who they have in mind for this PAID poisition!!!) |
||
|
“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012
|
||
|
||
|
Mike_Presta
MUSA Council
Joined: Apr 20 2008 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 3483 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Sep 10 2010 at 9:11am |
|
|
Attorney Picard:
Did ya notice all of the stuff they included by reference???
Do ya have ANY IDEA what all of that stuff is???
|
||
|
“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012
|
||
|
||
|
Mike_Presta
MUSA Council
Joined: Apr 20 2008 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 3483 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Sep 10 2010 at 9:08am |
|
|
So sure, it only applies to "Historic Districts or Historic Landmarks". BUT IT GIVES THEM THE POWER TO DECLARE ANYTHING THEY DAMN WELL PLEASE A HISTORIC DISTRICT OR LANDMARK!!!
Sheesh!! I can't believe that you didn't know what you were voting for!!!
|
||
|
“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012
|
||
|
||
|
Mike_Presta
MUSA Council
Joined: Apr 20 2008 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 3483 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Sep 10 2010 at 9:05am |
|
Mr. Picard: For one place: 1210.03(e)(1) e) General Powers and Duties. The Historic Commission shall have the following powers and duties, in addition to those otherwise specified: (1) The Historic Commission shall conduct a continuous survey of all areas, places, structures, works of art, or similar objects in the City which the Commission has reason to believe are or will be eligible for designation as historic sites, landmarks or districts.
For another place: 1210.05(a) Criteria. In considering any area, place, structure, work of art or similar object in the City as a historic site … For another place: 1210.05 (6) Its relationship to other distinctive areas or structures designated for preservation; (7) Its unique location or singular physical characteristic representing an established and familiar feature of the City; and…
And one of the most egregious of all: 1210.06 PROCEDURES FOR DESIGNATING HISTORIC LANDMARKS AND HISTORIC DISTRICTS This section, in its entirety, deals with designating additional properties, and/or districts as “historic“, EVEN AGAINST THE OWNERS’ WISHES!!! Haven’t you even read this thing yet, man??? How could you vote on it without reading it??? Scroll up in this very thread!!! See my post of 07 Sep 2010 at 7:39pm !!! I posted the entire Ordinance, exactly as I emailed it to you, with my comments to the most offensive sections!!! |
||
|
“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012
|
||
|
||
|
Rhodes
MUSA Resident
Joined: Jun 18 2010 Status: Offline Points: 209 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Sep 10 2010 at 8:14am |
|
|
I think it's time to bring in the ACLU.
|
||
|
||
|
danpicard
Outsider 
Joined: Jul 20 2009 Status: Offline Points: 7 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Sep 10 2010 at 7:40am |
|
|
Mr. Presta:
This ordinance only applies to "Historic Districts or Historic Landmarks". Tell me exactly which section of the ordinance states that it applies to "any" property in the City.
Dan Picard
|
||
|
Dan Picard
|
||
|
||
|
spiderjohn
Prominent MUSA Citizen
Joined: Jul 01 2007 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 2749 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Sep 10 2010 at 7:39am |
|
|
What about the 5 pinheads whot couldn't wait to approve this ordinance?
Or Mr.Picard, who couldn't bring the vote quickly enough?
These people have become dangerous.
A true threat to the community.
|
||
|
||
|
Mike_Presta
MUSA Council
Joined: Apr 20 2008 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 3483 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Sep 10 2010 at 5:52am |
|
|
Now, getting back to you, my good friend Mtown: You see, the rest of §1.19 of the Ohio Constitution that YOU “conveniently forgot” (your words, not mine) to quote, listed examples of the types and times of public exigencies wherein it was proper for “per se takings,” whether “direct” or “regulatory” in nature, of private property for public use. NONE of the examples given were ANYTHING like the conditions contained in ordinance 1210 nor were any of the examples given so narrowly beneficial numerically in scope to “members of the public” as the number being benefited by the types and times described in ordinance 1210. In other words, this ordinance was much more broadly and loosely written, but benefits only a few!!!
And I mean all of the foregoing with all due respect possible for me to muster to the pinhead who authored it!!
|
||
|
“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012
|
||
|
||
|
Mike_Presta
MUSA Council
Joined: Apr 20 2008 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 3483 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Sep 10 2010 at 4:46am |
|
Another big difference is that the original owners would have upgraded (and actually did upgrade) those places with THEIR OWN MONEY, and not tax money confiscated from the working poor!!
|
||
|
“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012
|
||
|
||
|
Mike_Presta
MUSA Council
Joined: Apr 20 2008 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 3483 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Sep 10 2010 at 4:38am |
|
|
So, you see, my friend--there can, indeed, be a "per se taking" allowed under this ordinance. This Ordinance will allow "regulatory takings" which our esteemed City Law Director has argued to the Supreme Court of this State of Ohio do, indeed exist in this state! And such "Per se, regulatory takings" when they occur, can demand the very same legal consequences as "direct encroachments" on the land.
Les Landen has so stated, so it MUST be true!!!
 |
||
|
“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012
|
||
|
||
|
Mike_Presta
MUSA Council
Joined: Apr 20 2008 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 3483 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Sep 10 2010 at 4:25am |
|
|
Middletonians, there are entire sections of this code 1210 which dictate that it shall be the Historic Commission or the Historic Commissioner, and not the owner of the property, who shall decide things such as whether the “property is incapable of earning a reasonable return, regardless of whether that return represents the most profitable return possible” or whether “property cannot be adapted for any other use, whether by the current owner or by a purchaser, which would result in a reasonable return”!!! The Commission can even FORCE a property owner to sell their property if the Commission does not like the LEGAL use for which the owner wishes to use the property, and they can deny the owner his legal right to petition for a variable use permit. Now, I know this is illegal. I KNOW that this is a “”government’s intrusion on a landowner’s property rights”!! I KNOW that this is a “regulatory taking that deprives him of all economic use of the property.” and I KNOW that this is unconstitutional!!! How do I know, you ask??? Well, just read this: “Within the land use context, there are two types of per se takings The first is a direct encroachment on the land "which subjects it to a public use that excludes or restricts dominion and control of the owner over it." In the traditional eminent domain situation, the government's action physically seizes or exclusively appropriates a landowner's property for a public purpose and, therefore, it is clear that the governments appropriation of the landowner's property constitutes a compensable "taking" within the meaning of the United States and Ohio Constitutions. The second type of per se taking is when there has been a "regulatory taking." In some instances, the government's action does not directly appropriate or invade a landowner's property. Rather the government's intrusion on a landowner's property rights occurs by regulation of the property. For example, if a municipality zones a particular parcel so as to preclude certain uses of a property, the landowner may allege that there has been a "regulatory" taking that deprives him of all economic use of the property. Thus, in order to state a claim under a per se taking theory, a plaintiff must allege that there has been either a physical invasion of his property or a regulation depriving him of all economic viable use.” Now, folks, those were not my words!!! Those were the words of one of the most brilliant legal minds in our nation!!! Those were the words of our very own City Law Director, Attorney Leslie S. Landen, Esquire!!! Yes, folks, Attorney Leslie S. Landen, Esquire, City Law Director, has made the above argument to the Ohio Supreme Court on behalf of the City of Middletown!! He has provided the very argument necessary for this law to be ruled unconstitutional!!! Of course when he made this argument, he (and the City) were on the other side of the issue from where any aggrieved property owner will be who runs afoul of the Historic Commission or any of their cronies. So, now this begs the two following questions:
Didn’t these three legal eagles even read this ordinance??? We know that they had it in front of them at least twice, during the first and second readings, as required by law!!! We know that Council Members (and Attorneys) Picard and Allen also had it emailed to them by this citizen, with the items questioned above HIGHLIGHTED and with comments regarding this very issued interspersed!!! So, what say ye, councilmen/Attorneys Picard and Allen??? Was Law Director Landen in error when he made the above argument to the Ohio Supreme Court…or was he wrong in allowing this flawed ordinance to go before council for a vote??? It must be one or the other!!! He cannot be both “for” and “against” the very same argument!!!
|
||
|
“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012
|
||
|
||
|
Mike_Presta
MUSA Council
Joined: Apr 20 2008 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 3483 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Sep 10 2010 at 4:23am |
|
However, PLEASE read my next post on this matter. Perhaps you will believe one of the most brilliant legal minds in the country!!!
|
||
|
“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012
|
||
|
||
|
Mtown
MUSA Resident
Joined: Sep 09 2010 Status: Offline Points: 63 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Sep 10 2010 at 4:02am |
|
|
Mr. Presta
I simply completed the sentence that you failed to in your original quote. The section of the Ohio Constitution you quoted has to do with the taking of private property for purposes of public use. Historic Districts are not a "taking" of private property. |
||
|
||
|
rngrmed
MUSA Citizen 
Joined: May 06 2009 Location: Middletown Status: Offline Points: 309 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Sep 09 2010 at 10:18pm |
|
|
I truly wonder if some of the original owners of these historic homes would have upgraded their homes over the years.
|
||
|
||
Topic Options
Mike_Presta wrote:|
Post Reply
|
Page 12> |
Tweet
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.
| Copyright ©2024 MiddletownUSA.com | Privacy Statement | Terms of Use | Site by Xponex Media | Advertising Information |